www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Tradition and Celibate Clergy

I ran across a letter published in a Catholic journal today that said the following:


http://www.newoxfordreview.org/letters.jsp?did=0600-letters

I have never heard of Mr. Cholij, but he has something published on the Vatican web site.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c..._con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

Which would lead me to believe his ideas are viewed as having merit. Is his view that celibate clergy are more traditional a commonly held one?

To the best of my knowledge, Roman Cholij has himself rejected his initial arguments and opinion, and says he was mistaken. (Cochini directed his thesis). Cochini's work is also now largely discredited.

the unworthy,
Elias

Hieromonk Elias, do you have links or more information you could point to? Why has Mr. Cholij's document remained posted on the Vatican site? Why does that publication back him up?

We've been over this one before. I don't know where it is offhand, maybe someone could search the archives.

AMM:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!!

Sadly this topic keeps coming up time and again. We here know that the venerable tradition of married men being ordained starts somewhere in antiquity. We also know that there has been a long dispute about when this started, when it was allowed, if it was allowed, etc.

Sadly it makes many upset when someone--anyone--makes the argument that celibate clergy is the norm, was the norm, was always the norm, etc.

I have some advice for those who are upset by misinformation published in books, articles, and even in official sources like the Vatican website. Take it all with a grain of salt. There will always be mistakes, errors, and outright falsehood published. I don't think that this article posted on the Vatican website is the latter, but let it go.

The Fathers suggest that we let nothing disturb our peace. NOTHING. NO--THING. NO--ONE.

When I grew up, everyone in my parish looked down on my siblings and me because our father was not a Catholic. We weren't part of anything. But I knew in my heart that I was a Catholic and was committed to being a Catholic.

The analogy limps, perhaps. You know who you are and you know the Faith as you were taught it and you know that the practices that you are familiar are something that comes to you from Tradition. Let no one with an academic degree disturb you because he is unfamiliar with any tradition than his own and writes something you know to be incorrect.

Beyond that, not everything posted on the Vatican website is dogma or official belief or even official discipline. If you want that, look to official documents like those produced by the Vatican Council where we are reminded of the venerable tradition of married men being ordained in the Eastern Churches. Then feel sorry for someone who should know better some forty plus years later. Even more sadly, as long as things like this are published our Orthodox brethren will look at us and wonder if we really mean what we say when we come to them claiming to respect them and the way they live out the Faith we claim to share.

In Christ,

BOB

BOB-

Well said.

And I'm sorry to hear that you were looked down upon. I have no idea what their motivations were, but just based on what you said it seems they confused Catholicism with sectarianism.

Markos


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Lord although I desired to blot out
With my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please thee through sincere repentance;
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
Against my soul with his cunning.
Oh Lord before I utterly perish do thou save me!

I understand, but I must believe if it is on the Vatican site it must have some official sanction and the article is not that old. If it has been refuted (and I would be interested to see any links that it has), why is it still there?

It does make me wonder, especially in light of articles like this. - http://www.crisismagazine.com/january2006/feature1.htm

I don't think everything on the Vatican website has some 'official sanction'. Websites are only websites. The advice to take everything you read on webpages with a grain of salt (or buckets of salt, if you prefer) is good advice.

Do try searching this website for discussions about clerical celibacy. There have been some very interesting discussions on this question.

the unworthy,
Elias

So the Vatican website can't be a trusted source for information on the Catholic faith? I'm having a hard time understanding that.


I used the search tool to search all forums for threads older than a week with the words "clerical celibacy" "celibate" "celibacy" and "Cholij" and didn't get any results back.

AMM:

Father Elias DIDN'T say that. Why is it that you would trust an internet website for information of any kind? Is this a generational thing?

When I want anything official about Catholic teaching I look first for the words "nihil obstat" (nothing stands in the way) by a canonical censor who has read the work and pronounced it free of doctrinal error. Then I look for "imprimatur" by a Catholic bishop (let it be printed).

Websites are like a flowing stream--here today and gone tomorrow. I don't trust websites like I trust things like the Catechism fo the Catholic Church or the Scripture or the Documents of Vatican II. These are authentic sources. Websites are like newspaper articles: they need to be read critically and the information found in them needs to be verified by comparison to other sources. If you find two sources that agree, find a third and then compare what you find. Given this last way of verification, it's also BEST to find someone who has an official position--like a priest--who can sort out the information for you. And even there we have priests who have been formed in this same sort of thing and who feel that married clergy is a mistake, an aberration, a ______________ (choose some word of your own).

My further advice is to stay away from this topic because there is so much misinformation available and it is obviously distrubing your pilgrimage.

In Christ Who calls us to be Loooong suffering,

BOB

Where did I ever state or give an indication that I would?

Common sense would tell me that there�s a difference between the Vatican web site and for instance John Q. Public�s personal web site on Catholicism. I understand that all documents published on the Vatican site may not carry nihil obstat and imprimatur, but certainly as the official online presence of the Vatican, documents published on that site would:

A. Get some sort of official scrutiny before being published.
B. Would be a trustworthy source for getting information on Catholicism.

I have a hard time believing I should have to read the official Vatican web site and have to take the content there with a grain of salt. Why publish anything there if that�s the case?


Well, I guess I am both genuinely interested and not disturbed by the topic, so I would like to find out more. So far I feel like for some reason there seems to be an interest in stifling discussion about this.

AMM:

I don't think that this is the case at all. What you are experiencing is the politics of this particular issue. Despite official statements about the "venerable tradition of the Eastern Churches," there remain large numbers of Catholic clergy--many in high places--who are not yet on board with this statement or this practice. Even among Vatican cardinals there is not a unanimous opinion about this discipline. The only area where there is a unanimous opinion is in maintaining the discipline of mandatory celibacy for the Latin Church--and that is not as unanimous as it seems when you have bishops advocating it in the media but not invited to a Vatican meeting where the discipline was reaffirmed recently.

The question I'd have to raise is who controls the Vatican website? Someone who doesn't believe in the tradition of the Eastern Churches in realtion to married clergy? Possible.


Not necessarily. Again, who controls the website? The Holy Father certainly doesn't scrutinize everthing that goes on the website. And certainly the big guns--the Secretariat of State and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith--don't go over the website on a regular basis. Beyond that, this is a disciplinary matter that minimally affects these congregations. Congregation for Bishops? Probably not reading this. Congregations that monitor clergy? Probably busy with lots of cases involving really serious matters relating to clergy.

My point is that some things are simply going to get past without a lot of scrutiny. Perhaps to a lot of Latin clergy this is simply what they've been taught in seminary and it doesn't raise any red flags. It's not heresy, after all; simply a mistake someone made.


Maybe I should apologize for assuming--as I did from the way you mentioned the website--that you trusted the source as reliable. I continue to have this discussion with my children who are of the internet era. They trust what they find on the web like I would trust sources once found between hard cover in libraries. The problem that I have with them is the issue of critical thinking and evaluation. Somehow their education has been to the effect that if something is published or posted it must be true.

If I have wrongly assumed this, please accept my apologies.

My own experience on the internet has been that one finds information that has a 50/50 chance of being accurate. Everyone with something to say can post. But it is for us to evaluate it and check it against our own education and experience, together with others we deem worthy of our trust. Perhaps that may seem parochial, but outside of official sources and teaching it seems to be the only way to stay away from misinformation and misinformation that then causes us to be disturbed in spirit. After all, this whole area of the Church and her practice is something more important than anything else we do or endeavor in this life.

In Christ,

BOB

No need to apologize, but thank you.

AMM:

Thanks. Now perhaps you'll help me out.

I know a Latin priest who says that married clergy NEVER WORK OUT in a parish setting. How do I bore into his skull and have him face the fact that I've WORKED WITH many Orthodox clergy who have successfully raised families and ministered successfully to their flocks at the same time? (And believe me, I've considered the possibility of ACTUALLY taking a drill to his thick skull.) He claims that this is what he was taught in the seminary and he believes it. That's why the Latin Church does not permit it.

So far, I just walk away.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob, what I've heard in the past is that married Latin Rite priests (meaning essentially converts) are treated like second class citizens, often not given very good assignments, and that many flocks may not be willing to contribute the extra resources needed to support a married priest (which has always surprised me given the size of many RCC parishes). I really have no idea what goes on on that side of the fence however, or whether or not that remark was true. I do believe if you're convinced something won't work, in the end it probably will not. So whether the issue is a real practical problem, or a mindset is unclear to me.

My parish priests have always been married, so it's all I know. I can't imagine our parish without our Pani, she adds and does a tremendous number of critical things. I think in many ways she also provides an important complement and grounding point for our priest (just like many wives do for their husbands myself very much included).